If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

There is something deeply wrong with the results of this benchmark! While the apparent wins of AMD processors can be attributed to anything from poor compiler support to the wild difference in platforms, there is no explanation for the unnatural balance of the Intel processors among themselves!

While the i7 920 coming out on top in so many benchmarks starts to feel fishy, seeing the i5 750 beat any of the other Intels is clearly wrong, and casts doubt on the whole test! I think the performance problems hinted in the beginning are definitely not solved by turning Turbo Mode off in the BIOS, and further investigation is necessary.

Perhaps these lines from the dmesg in the previous P55 article give an indication:

There is also a factual error in the article: the i7 870 is most definitely not a "mid-range" processor, it is running at 2.93Ghz not 2.66 (that's the 750) and has a price of ~550$, not 250$ -- that's the i7 860. There is even an Amazon link that lists the price at 695$ (obviously inflated to get early-adopters). At that price, it would be foolish for Intel to try and sell the 870 if the 920 out-performed it, now wouldn't it?! Of course, every other benchmark everywhere places the 870 far ahead of the 920, it's obvious even from the frequency difference (2.93 vs. 2.66) that the 870 should do better! As it stands, the results of this particular benchmark can not be trusted -- except as indication of something very wrong with the new Core iX processors in Linux, which warrants a closer look.

Oh, and why is there no mention in either the P55 or this article about the other important change on the Lynnfields, integrating the PCI-E controller with 16x lanes on the processor die? That's the reason the QPI link was replaced by the slower DMI, and in itself could pose tricky problems for drivers and kernel developers, again an avenue of inquiry for the strange results of the tests.

Comment

Well to be fair, Intel is 100% dependent on Windows to sell CPUs so it's no surprise they'd build their CPUs around making it as fast as possible there.

They don't own the server market - the Pentium/Core FSB bottleneck has always kept it behind in multithreaded performance. Atom can't compete with ARM at all - and both Intel and MS know that. Intel is at least making an effort to keep customers with Moblin, whereas MS is (as usual) resorting to desperation tactics, paying off the likes of Asus and Bestbuy to spread FUD.

Comment

Just to add my 2 cents, I had mix feeling to see most review site post result with Turbo boost enabled. I personally would prefer to also see the result without. Nonetheless, I am quite surprised at the result posted on phoronix. Definitely will postpone buying one until at least things are sorted out, already do enough beta testing as is. Hopefully won't see a repeat of the problems with poulsbo...

To achieve similar performance numbers under linux you need to run Pathscale, Portland group, or the free open64 compilers to get similar numbers. For instance using said compilers gets over double the performance with stream when compared to the phoronix posted numbers.

To achieve similar performance numbers under linux you need to run Pathscale, Portland group, or the free open64 compilers to get similar numbers. For instance using said compilers gets over double the performance with stream when compared to the phoronix posted numbers.

Is possible then, the Intel's proccessors to run better the programs that have been compiled with their own compiler?